@r-gamer: No its pushing graphically? Before it was pushing the hardware. Which is it? Is pushing higher fps some how not pushing my hardware? Is seeing 99% GPU usage some sort of mirage? Am I imagining you moving the goalposts?
@04dcarraher: FFXV along with TW3 and Bloodborne were noticiably bad at loading times. A lot of games, such as HZD, take like 30 seconds to load at most when fast travelling. Most games nowadays load just a couple of times per gaming session, so whatever loadtime difference there may be is not really life changing.
@fedor: I actually thought you were better than this fedor, so I'm a bit disappointed. You are basically full of it, like I just showed you. Still, hope you learned something today. It was fun.
@fedor: The only game I remember being really slow to load was Bloodborne when it came out. Other than that, no game is slow enough to the point where it's really noticeable or annoying.
Anyway, I was just referring to the exaggerated conceptions that people who have never played on a console have about consoles.
By the way, I don't think people are hyped about load times. They are hyped about how fast scenarios will be able to load, and since this will be the new norm (because consoles define the norm of most games, unlike PC), it will allow devs to make games where traversal is faster.
You didn't play Assassin's Creed: Odyssey on console? It takes around 20 seconds to load a new area/scene on the PS4 Pro, while it's around 3-5 seconds on a regular PC 7200 RPM HDD. Lol
Thing is, even though there aren't many games that make use of say a 1080ti right now, this only means that if you bought something like a 1080ti you will be able to play video games on high-very high 1080p/2k settings for a long, long time.
@DragonfireXZ95: I haven't and won't. Still, I wouldn't consider 20 seconds "slow". Maybe as compared to SSD's, but not overall, and that's the whole point of the argument. I've rarely felt that games were slow to load, except for the games I mentioned.
@fedor: Perhaps read the TC. By your standard every game pushes your hardware. It's not moving the goalpost its just staying on topic.
Granted hes being a sarcastic troll. But this is what I'm referring to. If your PC hardware is pushing 100+ fps then its capable of far more graphical features in that particular game.
And OP has 1 karma. C'mon, PC gamers, stop flagging people because they're not praising PC.
I never really paid attention to this karma before. It says I have 1. Was it you who flagged me or some other clown? That shit is hilarious. I would love to see who flagged me and for what. To whoever flagged me....
@DragonfireXZ95: I haven't and won't. Still, I wouldn't consider 20 seconds "slow". Maybe as compared to SSD's, but not overall, and that's the whole point of the argument. I've rarely felt that games were slow to load, except for the games I mentioned.
Well, that's why you have no idea what slow is, because you're accustomed to it. Why are you even arguing about this if you have no idea what it's like to experience the grass on the other side?
@fedor: Perhaps read the TC. By your standard every game pushes your hardware. It's not moving the goalpost its just staying on topic.
Granted hes being a sarcastic troll. But this is what I'm referring to. If your PC hardware is pushing 100+ fps then its capable of far more graphical features in that particular game.
"All actual PC games are built to run on integrated graphics $200 laptops. Higher resolutions, FPS and even ray tracing are worthless as the cows have proven. High resolutions don't improve graphics at all and anything above 30fps second is just a gimmick."
Maybe you should read it again. Higher fps gaming is pushing hardware.
@DragonfireXZ95: I haven't and won't. Still, I wouldn't consider 20 seconds "slow". Maybe as compared to SSD's, but not overall, and that's the whole point of the argument. I've rarely felt that games were slow to load, except for the games I mentioned.
Well, that's why you have no idea what slow is, because you're accustomed to it. Why are you even arguing about this if you have no idea what it's like to experience the grass on the other side?
And why exactly do you assume I haven't? And even if I hadn't, playing a game on console that loads in 5 seconds would give me a good enough reference and high enough standard to judge another game that loads in 40. You don't even need to go to a different platform to experience different load times. Are you serious? HAHAHA.
@fedor: lol I'm not sure why this is difficult for you. If your PC is running a game at 100+ fps the game is not pushing your PC graphically.
Optimization, the one thing that PC games lack that actually holds back PC gaming.
It's funny PC guys blame consoles for holding back PC when PC is an open platform and not connected to PC in any way as far as development goes.
Consoles have the benefit of being closed boxes with the SAME specs across the board for devs to completely optimize to maximize all the potential for those systems.
The kind of graphics PC games imagined they'd be playing in terms of visuals this gen.
The kind of graphics PC gamers settled for after hyping "power". Now forced to rationalize resolution and higher fps = best graphics.
Since unoptimized console multiplats are the only graphically impressive titles PC gets; pushing additional frames at higher and higher resolution is used to force their systems to max out so they can say, "look our PC potential is being used".
@DragonfireXZ95: I haven't and won't. Still, I wouldn't consider 20 seconds "slow". Maybe as compared to SSD's, but not overall, and that's the whole point of the argument. I've rarely felt that games were slow to load, except for the games I mentioned.
Well, that's why you have no idea what slow is, because you're accustomed to it. Why are you even arguing about this if you have no idea what it's like to experience the grass on the other side?
And why exactly do you assume I haven't? And even if I hadn't, playing a game on console that loads in 5 seconds would give me a good enough reference and high enough standard to judge another game that loads in 40. You don't even need to go to a different platform to experience different load times. Are you serious? HAHAHA.
Oh, so your comparing one game to different game? That's a little strange. I was comparing multiplat games on different systems, say going from a PS4 Pro to a regular HDD on PC. What's even the point of comparing one game to another on the same platform? Most games have differing load times and the amount of load times varies greatly from one to another, and there's really no reason to compare those times.
And why exactly do you assume I haven't? And even if I hadn't, playing a game on console that loads in 5 seconds would give me a good enough reference and high enough standard to judge another game that loads in 40. You don't even need to go to a different platform to experience different load times. Are you serious? HAHAHA.
What? Apparently the scientific method means shit, and we should listen to Arkhalipso.
@fedor: lol I'm not sure why this is difficult for you. If your PC is running a game at 100+ fps the game is not pushing your PC graphically.
Optimization, the one thing that PC games lack that actually holds back PC gaming.
It's funny PC guys blame consoles for holding back PC when PC is an open platform and not connected to PC in any way as far as development goes.
Consoles have the benefit of being closed boxes with the SAME specs across the board for devs to completely optimize to maximize all the potential for those systems.
The kind of graphics PC games imagined they'd be playing in terms of visuals this gen.
The kind of graphics PC gamers settled for after hyping "power". They've been forced to rationalize resolution and higher fps is all you need for best graphics.
Since unoptimized console multiplats are the only graphically impressive titles PC gets; pushing additional frames at higher and higher resolution is used to force their systems to max out.
you are selectively ignoring posts that disprove this
also, higher resolutions do make games look dramatically better (you don't need to use image-blurring AA techniques to mask jaggies) and higher frame rates make games feel/play dramatically better. Those are legitimate and highly beneficial uses of powerful hardware.
@DragonfireXZ95: I haven't and won't. Still, I wouldn't consider 20 seconds "slow". Maybe as compared to SSD's, but not overall, and that's the whole point of the argument. I've rarely felt that games were slow to load, except for the games I mentioned.
Well, that's why you have no idea what slow is, because you're accustomed to it. Why are you even arguing about this if you have no idea what it's like to experience the grass on the other side?
And why exactly do you assume I haven't? And even if I hadn't, playing a game on console that loads in 5 seconds would give me a good enough reference and high enough standard to judge another game that loads in 40. You don't even need to go to a different platform to experience different load times. Are you serious? HAHAHA.
Oh, so your comparing one game to different game? That's a little strange. I was comparing multiplat games on different systems, say going from a PS4 Pro to a regular HDD on PC. What's even the point of comparing one game to another on the same platform? Most games have differing load times and the amount of load times varies greatly from one to another, and there's really no reason to compare those times.
If I play an open world game in which it takes 5-10 seconds to fast travel and then play another open world game that takes a minute to load when fast travelling, comparing the two (which are very similar types of games on the same console) should give me a pretty good idea of whether the second game is/feels slow. So your argument that I haven't experienced short load times and hence wouldn't know what "slow" is dies here, since I have indeed experienced short loading times both on console and PC.
Let's not drag this any further. "Slow" is subjective. What you consider fast today will be slow tomorrow. SSD's are faster than HDD's, but loading times on most console games are not slow enough to be considered annoying.
@DragonfireXZ95: I haven't and won't. Still, I wouldn't consider 20 seconds "slow". Maybe as compared to SSD's, but not overall, and that's the whole point of the argument. I've rarely felt that games were slow to load, except for the games I mentioned.
Well, that's why you have no idea what slow is, because you're accustomed to it. Why are you even arguing about this if you have no idea what it's like to experience the grass on the other side?
And why exactly do you assume I haven't? And even if I hadn't, playing a game on console that loads in 5 seconds would give me a good enough reference and high enough standard to judge another game that loads in 40. You don't even need to go to a different platform to experience different load times. Are you serious? HAHAHA.
@fedor: lol I'm not sure why this is difficult for you. If your PC is running a game at 100+ fps the game is not pushing your PC graphically.
... and if the games are pushing graphics too much, you can't run them at high frame rates. It's all about finding the right balance. PC allows for that. Many PC gamers will reduce settings on games to run at high frame rates. Consoles have reduced settings by default and still have shit frame rates. LOL
Personally, I like to play without compromise. So, I buy top end hardware. This allows me to play at max settings and high frame rates. However, I will always prioritize frame rate over graphics and I will reduce some settings when necessary.
@fedor: lol I'm not sure why this is difficult for you. If your PC is running a game at 100+ fps the game is not pushing your PC graphically.
Optimization, the one thing that PC games lack that actually holds back PC gaming.
It's funny PC guys blame consoles for holding back PC when PC is an open platform and not connected to PC in any way as far as development goes.
Consoles have the benefit of being closed boxes with the SAME specs across the board for devs to completely optimize to maximize all the potential for those systems.
The kind of graphics PC games imagined they'd be playing in terms of visuals this gen.
The kind of graphics PC gamers settled for after hyping "power". They've been forced to rationalize resolution and higher fps is all you need for best graphics.
Since unoptimized console multiplats are the only graphically impressive titles PC gets; pushing additional frames at higher and higher resolution is used to force their systems to max out.
you are selectively ignoring posts that disprove this
also, higher resolutions do make games look dramatically better (you don't need to use image-blurring AA techniques to mask jaggies) and higher frame rates make games feel/play dramatically better. Those are legitimate and highly beneficial uses of powerful hardware.
I actually kind of agree with your points.
1. Higher resolution "can" make games "look" better by allowing you to "see" the details of the underlying graphics better.
2. Higher frame rates do make games "feel" better.
That said, I'd like to clarify that higher resolution doesn't improve graphics, it only allows you to see the details of graphics better. If a game has crappy graphics higher resolution isn't going to fix that.
Shot out to Bassman
Higher frame rate doesn't make games play better lol that happens at the development level. A game with crappy gameplay at 100fps is still crappy. Maybe you meant more fluid?
I''ve never argued that the ability to put out higher resolution and frame rates isn't beneficial to powerful hardware. But there is a certain point where gratuitous resolution and frame rate pumping is just wasting that power.
Lifting weights is great for building muscle. Going to the gym pressing a 1 pound weight 1000 times for an hours isn't really going to produce any results.
@fedor: In all seriousness, I'm not exactly sure what it is that you don't understand:
OP said I didn't know what fast load times are, hence I wouldn't be able to tell when a game is slow to load. I have played a lot of games, and so I've seen some games (which are similar) load at very different speeds. Still, those slower load times are not slow enough to be considered "bad", even when compared to games that load a lot faster. This can be done on the same platform, since you're just measuring the time you have to wait to continue playing. You don't need to play the same game on different platforms (one of them with an SSD) to objectively judge longer load times.
@lundy86_4: On different games. Do you even read? Are gamespot users seriously this dumb? What is going on? ROFL.
Good God. You are equating load times between different games, whereas, @DragonfireXZ95 did not. Comparing different games across the same platform means jack-shit...
@fedor: lol I'm not sure why this is difficult for you. If your PC is running a game at 100+ fps the game is not pushing your PC graphically.
Optimization, the one thing that PC games lack that actually holds back PC gaming.
It's funny PC guys blame consoles for holding back PC when PC is an open platform and not connected to PC in any way as far as development goes.
Consoles have the benefit of being closed boxes with the SAME specs across the board for devs to completely optimize to maximize all the potential for those systems.
The kind of graphics PC games imagined they'd be playing in terms of visuals this gen.
The kind of graphics PC gamers settled for after hyping "power". They've been forced to rationalize resolution and higher fps is all you need for best graphics.
Since unoptimized console multiplats are the only graphically impressive titles PC gets; pushing additional frames at higher and higher resolution is used to force their systems to max out.
you are selectively ignoring posts that disprove this
also, higher resolutions do make games look dramatically better (you don't need to use image-blurring AA techniques to mask jaggies) and higher frame rates make games feel/play dramatically better. Those are legitimate and highly beneficial uses of powerful hardware.
I actually kind of agree with your points.
1. Higher resolution "can" make games "look" better by allowing you to "see" the details of the underlying graphics better.
2. Higher frame rates do make games "feel" better.
That said, I'd like to clarify that higher resolution doesn't improve graphics, it only allows you to see the details of graphics better. If a game has crappy graphics higher resolution isn't going to fix that.
Shot out to Bassman
Higher frame rate doesn't make games play better lol that happens at the development level. A game with crappy gameplay at 100fps is still crappy. Maybe you meant more fluid?
I''ve never argued that the ability to put out higher resolution and frame rates isn't beneficial to powerful hardware. But there is a certain point where gratuitous resolution and frame rate pumping is just wasting that power.
Lifting weights is great for building muscle. Going to the gym pressing a 1 pound weight 1000 times for an hours isn't really going to produce any results.
I love how you ignore my posts in the other thread that prove you wrong. Not only does higher resolution add detail and clarity, it also improves graphical anomalies such as aliasing. Without the high resolution, the details do not come through. So, you can have the most amazing graphics in the world, but if you are playing at low resolution, they are going to waste. If resolution didn't affect graphics/visuals, then we wouldn't have HD and 4K TVs.
Live action video has the best 'graphics' because it is captured from reality. Why does a 4K movie look so much better than that same movie in SD? Resolution.
Also, frame rate not only affects input lag and smoothness of a game, it makes the graphics clearer as well. The higher the frame rate, the less motion blur.
@lundy86_4: On different games. Do you even read? Are gamespot users seriously this dumb? What is going on? ROFL.
Good God. You are equating load times between different games, whereas, @DragonfireXZ95 did not. Comparing different games across the same platform means jack-shit...
Seriously, why do you people bother posting before reading the whole thread first? The whole argument is about whether load times on consoles are bad. Even the first part of the paragraph you quoted explained it perfectly well. Anyway, here's a summary of it because, apparently, you and fedor have a hard time understanding something as simple as this.
OP said I didn't know what fast load times are, hence I wouldn't be able to tell when a game is slow to load. I have played a lot of games, and so I've seen some games (which are similar) load at very different speeds. Still, those slower load times are not slow enough to be considered "bad", even when compared to games that load a lot faster. This can be done on the same platform, since you're just measuring the time you have to wait to continue playing. You don't need to play the same game on different platforms (one of them with an SSD) to objectively judge longer load times.
@fedor: In all seriousness, I'm not exactly sure what it is that you don't understand:
OP said I didn't know what fast load times are, hence I wouldn't be able to tell when a game is slow to load. I have played a lot of games, and so I've seen some games (which are similar) load at very different speeds. Still, those slower load times are not slow enough to be considered "bad", even when compared to games that load a lot faster. This can be done on the same platform, since you're just measuring the time you have to wait to continue playing. You don't need to play the same game on different platforms (one of them with an SSD) to objectively judge longer load times.
It's not exactly beneficial to compare loading times between different games, because some games load much more than others. Games are designed to bring loading times to as little as possible, thus games that have big open worlds have one long load time and games that don't tend to have more loads that are much less significant in time. You won't actually see the negative effects of most game load times unless you compare them to another platform with the same game, because actual load screens are diminished as much as possible.
Thus, you think that 20 seconds is not a long load time, because you've experienced 40 second load times, but the variable is not static like you are trying to make it; it's a dynamic variable that ends up being changed based on the game, platform and storage application. Imagine that 20 second load time every 5 minutes, versus a 40 second load time every 5 minutes. We are also comparing to the PC, hence the thread title, so to just say that 20 seconds versus 5 is not long is objectively wrong. You can call it subjective all you want, but if you compare them objectively, then 20 seconds is 4 times as long as 5 seconds, thus is considered "long."
@Arkhalipso: I understand exactly what you're saying... What you don't understand is it's a terribly idiotic method to use.
But since you're here I figure I'll explain how Steam survey works since you think you understand.
Steam survey is opt in. Once you are they will collect data from you once a month unless you opt out at a later date. You do not list your specs to them, you give them access to your pc to extract the data. You do not opt in every month. They do not throw out data after the month, they keep it until your specs change and the data gets updated. You do not need large sample sizes for surveys, thats not how they work. Here is an article on how it works
@fedor: lol I'm not sure why this is difficult for you. If your PC is running a game at 100+ fps the game is not pushing your PC graphically.
Optimization, the one thing that PC games lack that actually holds back PC gaming.
It's funny PC guys blame consoles for holding back PC when PC is an open platform and not connected to PC in any way as far as development goes.
Consoles have the benefit of being closed boxes with the SAME specs across the board for devs to completely optimize to maximize all the potential for those systems.
The kind of graphics PC games imagined they'd be playing in terms of visuals this gen.
The kind of graphics PC gamers settled for after hyping "power". Now forced to rationalize resolution and higher fps = best graphics.
Since unoptimized console multiplats are the only graphically impressive titles PC gets; pushing additional frames at higher and higher resolution is used to force their systems to max out so they can say, "look our PC potential is being used".
Why are you comparing a menu scene to a random in game screenshot when you are trying to prove how graphically superior your first example is? is this meant to be a joke or are you really this mentally challenged?
I also hate how people throw the word "optimize" around, the only real significant and visible "optimization" that consoles accomplish is the fact that games can semi consistently reach 30 fps with their god awful CPUs its truly a miracle.
There are a few games that can choke even top end PCs and it has nothing to do with "optimization" those games usually have ridiculous physics, insane amount of objects/polygons on screen, the "optimization" that devs do for consoles in most cases is just simplifying lighting, reduce draw distance (/model complexity at larger distances), reduce texture resolution, reduce anti aliasing etc., in most cases there is no a bottleneck or a bad loop that you can fix that will significantly boost performance without loosing visual fidelity.
1. Higher resolution "can" make games "look" better by allowing you to "see" the details of the underlying graphics better.
2. Higher frame rates do make games "feel" better.
That said, I'd like to clarify that higher resolution doesn't improve graphics, it only allows you to see the details of graphics better. If a game has crappy graphics higher resolution isn't going to fix that.
Shot out to Bassman
Higher frame rate doesn't make games play better lol that happens at the development level. A game with crappy gameplay at 100fps is still crappy. Maybe you meant more fluid?
I''ve never argued that the ability to put out higher resolution and frame rates isn't beneficial to powerful hardware. But there is a certain point where gratuitous resolution and frame rate pumping is just wasting that power.
Lifting weights is great for building muscle. Going to the gym pressing a 1 pound weight 1000 times for an hours isn't really going to produce any results.
Without the high resolution, the details do not come through. So, you can have the most amazing graphics in the world, but if you are playing at low resolution, they are going to waste. If resolution didn't affect graphics/visuals, then we wouldn't have HD and 4K TVs.
Out of all your ranting, this is the bit I will subtly agree with.
Subtly...
Higher resolution does helps you see graphics better. I never argued otherwise, it simply doesn't "improve" graphics.
The graphics you're looking at when you see them at a higher resolution are simply the graphics that were already there only less apparent.
Again YOUR example...
? Did the portion of the image that is at higher resolution have details and "graphics" added vs the part the portion that's blurred?
If we were using a normal game image here you could make up any argument to say what was added, adjusted or upgraded ect.
But if you know you're looking at an actual physical location, that entire argument goes out the window.
Remove the glasses all together and the scene will STILL be exactly the same no matter if it "looks" blurred as shit or even if you're blind folded.
The higher resolution didn't do anything to the behind scene other than allowing you to SEE the details (aka graphics) that are already there better.
@crimson_v: You do realize GoW's visuals are identical throughout the entire game? It uses a one shot camera. Its assets are consistently high quality.
@crimson_v: You do realize GoW's visuals are identical throughout the entire game? It uses a one shot camera. Its assets are consistently high quality.
And apparently I'm also "mentally challenged" but these are the people that flag bomb me for daring to have an opinion.
@boxrekt: The graphics are the image that you see. If that image is clearer, has more detail, less jaggies, etc. due to the resolution... the resolution has affected and improved the graphics. Your ignorant trolling doesn't change that.
@boxrekt: Honestly there is a quality gap between Sonys exclusives and multiplats. If I named you the top 10 best looking games on the PS4 at least half would be exclusive. You have to understand hermits get butthurt when they see a $400 prebuilt box pushing those visuals.
@fedor: lol I'm not sure why this is difficult for you. If your PC is running a game at 100+ fps the game is not pushing your PC graphically.
Optimization, the one thing that PC games lack that actually holds back PC gaming.
It's funny PC guys blame consoles for holding back PC when PC is an open platform and not connected to PC in any way as far as development goes.
Consoles have the benefit of being closed boxes with the SAME specs across the board for devs to completely optimize to maximize all the potential for those systems.
The kind of graphics PC games imagined they'd be playing in terms of visuals this gen.
The kind of graphics PC gamers settled for after hyping "power". They've been forced to rationalize resolution and higher fps is all you need for best graphics.
Since unoptimized console multiplats are the only graphically impressive titles PC gets; pushing additional frames at higher and higher resolution is used to force their systems to max out.
you are selectively ignoring posts that disprove this
also, higher resolutions do make games look dramatically better (you don't need to use image-blurring AA techniques to mask jaggies) and higher frame rates make games feel/play dramatically better. Those are legitimate and highly beneficial uses of powerful hardware.
I actually kind of agree with your points.
1. Higher resolution "can" make games "look" better by allowing you to "see" the details of the underlying graphics better.
2. Higher frame rates do make games "feel" better.
That said, I'd like to clarify that higher resolution doesn't improve graphics, it only allows you to see the details of graphics better. If a game has crappy graphics higher resolution isn't going to fix that.
Shot out to Bassman
Higher frame rate doesn't make games play better lol that happens at the development level. A game with crappy gameplay at 100fps is still crappy. Maybe you meant more fluid?
I''ve never argued that the ability to put out higher resolution and frame rates isn't beneficial to powerful hardware. But there is a certain point where gratuitous resolution and frame rate pumping is just wasting that power.
Lifting weights is great for building muscle. Going to the gym pressing a 1 pound weight 1000 times for an hours isn't really going to produce any results.
Fast twitch muscle fibres (low weights, high reps)?
@boxrekt: Honestly there is a quality gap between Sonys exclusives and multiplats. If I named you the top 10 best looking games on the PS4 at least half would be exclusive. You have to understand hermits get butthurt when they see a $400 prebuilt box pushing those visuals.
Nah, we get butthurt when we waste money on a console (the 'premium' version to boot) to play those exclusives and they run like shit. Meanwhile, if they were on PC, they could be enjoyed properly because we wouldn't be limited to shit hardware.
Nobody denies the talent of first party studios that make good looking games. They are just being held hostage on shit platforms. Also, I judge games and graphics based on their own merits. I don't care who makes them. A game being an exclusive does not mean it has superior graphics.
@crimson_v: You do realize GoW's visuals are identical throughout the entire game? It uses a one shot camera. Its assets are consistently high quality.
Sure, maybe those specific assets are of higher quality. The game isn't exactly a looker if you don't cherry pick the screenshots. Anything that focuses on the environment provides a plethora of low res textures, absent real-time lighting, and weak ambient occlusion.
Lifting weights is great for building muscle. Going to the gym pressing a 1 pound weight 1000 times for an hours isn't really going to produce any results.
@fedor: In all seriousness, I'm not exactly sure what it is that you don't understand:
OP said I didn't know what fast load times are, hence I wouldn't be able to tell when a game is slow to load. I have played a lot of games, and so I've seen some games (which are similar) load at very different speeds. Still, those slower load times are not slow enough to be considered "bad", even when compared to games that load a lot faster. This can be done on the same platform, since you're just measuring the time you have to wait to continue playing. You don't need to play the same game on different platforms (one of them with an SSD) to objectively judge longer load times.
It's not exactly beneficial to compare loading times between different games, because some games load much more than others. Games are designed to bring loading times to as little as possible, thus games that have big open worlds have one long load time and games that don't tend to have more loads that are much less significant in time. You won't actually see the negative effects of most game load times unless you compare them to another platform with the same game, because actual load screens are diminished as much as possible.
Thus, you think that 20 seconds is not a long load time, because you've experienced 40 second load times, but the variable is not static like you are trying to make it; it's a dynamic variable that ends up being changed based on the game, platform and storage application. Imagine that 20 second load time every 5 minutes, versus a 40 second load time every 5 minutes. We are also comparing to the PC, hence the thread title, so to just say that 20 seconds versus 5 is not long is objectively wrong. You can call it subjective all you want, but if you compare them objectively, then 20 seconds is 4 times as long as 5 seconds, thus is considered "long."
I know that some games have to load more than others, that's why I said that similar games load at different speeds on the same platform. As you (or someone) said, FFXV takes more than a minute to load, whereas HZD takes 30-40 seconds from one edge of the map to the other. It's not just about how much they load, but also how the game was designed and optimized to load. That's the whole base of my argument. Now, the perspective of how long a game takes to load is not inherent to the game, but to loading times in general. Judging whether loading in a game is fast or slow based on the loading times of other similar games that have loading screens at around the same intervals is perfectly fine.
And it is subjective. One second is four times a quarter of a second. I think we both agree that two games which took that long to load would be considered equally "fast" (someone might disagree, but whatever). Four seconds and one second loading times would still be fast for most people, but not as fast. Now where do we draw the line? That is subjective, not objective. A loading time might be fast you and slow for me, even if both of us were used to playing games that load almost immediately.
Almost 4 pages and Hermits can’t name a single exclusive game better looking than God Of War or Uncharted 4.
It must suck that Star Citizen is never coming out and all you have to look forward to is more Demo Videos Of Graphics Cards for future games that will never be made on PC!
Almost 4 pages and Hermits can’t name a single exclusive game better looking than God Of War or Uncharted 4.
It must suck that Star Citizen is never coming out and all you have to look forward to is more Demo Videos Of Graphics Cards for future games that will never be made on PC!
LMFAO
Exclusive wasn't stipulated. Furthermore, this thread is facetious.
And console gamers told developers they like graphics over gameplay, so all their games are at 30fps.
Stop the nonsense.
Where did this console gamers asked for graphics over gameplay argument come from?
Is that the damage control PC gamers came up with because our exclusives came out looking better than your PC games this gen? Talk about salty.
Disregarding any fanboy opinion, our games are validated AAA, highly polished, and critically acclaimed throughout the entire industry as the best gaming has to offer.
If you want to point fingers at a group who hypes graphics over gameplay, we've got to look no further than you own PC gamers
STAR CITIZEN, from a guy who dropped $7000 on the game.
Loading Video...
*he also confirms that the physics in the game are QUOTE: "Complete dog shit"*
Now this is PC gamers most praised game for graphics and you crown jewel of PC power this gen...
And is complete DOG SHIT for gameplay! Hell it's barely even a "game".
Deal wit that and stop spreading lies about console gamers because our titles offer superior graphics as well as far higher quality gameplay than those demos and unfinished beta projects you guys hype for graphics!
Almost 4 pages and Hermits can’t name a single exclusive game better looking than God Of War or Uncharted 4.
It must suck that Star Citizen is never coming out and all you have to look forward to is more Demo Videos Of Graphics Cards for future games that will never be made on PC!
1. Higher resolution "can" make games "look" better by allowing you to "see" the details of the underlying graphics better.
2. Higher frame rates do make games "feel" better.
That said, I'd like to clarify that higher resolution doesn't improve graphics, it only allows you to see the details of graphics better. If a game has crappy graphics higher resolution isn't going to fix that.
Shot out to Bassman
Higher frame rate doesn't make games play better lol that happens at the development level. A game with crappy gameplay at 100fps is still crappy. Maybe you meant more fluid?
I''ve never argued that the ability to put out higher resolution and frame rates isn't beneficial to powerful hardware. But there is a certain point where gratuitous resolution and frame rate pumping is just wasting that power.
Lifting weights is great for building muscle. Going to the gym pressing a 1 pound weight 1000 times for an hours isn't really going to produce any results.
Fast twitch muscle fibres (low weights, high reps)?
Disregarding the fact that Bruce had a very small frame. Bruce Lee did heavy weight training as well as traditional strength endurance training.
If you assumed otherwise then not only are you uninformed about Bruce but also traditional kung fu training, it's VERY muscle intensive lol at low weights.
Log in to comment